politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
I bet this was the real reason he was expelled. Congressmen rely on donations for their grift, and their donors were no doubt asking if they supported his practice.
Hell, he literally stole money from another Republican Congressman and his wife.
You almost have to respect it.
For how blatant his lies and fabrications were, and how brazenly he stole and misued money, I'm honestly impressed that he got into office in the first place (who tf was running his opponent's campaign?). Surviving 11 months after that was just standard "Republicans refusing to hold each other accountable" behavior. But man, gotta admit the guy pulled off a pretty decent con.
His opponent repeatedly tried to blow the whistle at what was going on with Santos' campaign, but was all but ignored by the media who considered it a low-level race not worth covering. I think it took about a month after the election before the media started to actually give a damn.
The GOP wants blackmail and leverage options, and only when they have the power.
Santos's lies were pretty clear, blatant, and he was grifting his own party. Useless as an asset, and detrimental to his own people.
He is from a safe very red district so the craziest person wins the primary and then basically gets in free after that.
It's a blue district, though only D+2 (meaning it tends to be 2 points more towards Dems than the national average). It did vote for Bush in 2004, but is otherwise straight blue for President since 1992. Most recently went for Biden by +10 points.
Republicans have historically held that seat with very large majorities. Over 70% during Bush and Obama presidencies. Trump was enough to drag it down but then as soon as he was off the ballot it's back to crazy land Republicans. I might be wrong but to me that says deep red.
I don't even think that deceiving donors was the line. I think it was exactly what he bought. OnlyFans? Scandalous. Botox for a man? Shameful. If he'd bought guns and an F350, or just Venmo'd a high school student, he'd still a congressman.
Friendly reminder that OnlyFans talking about banning porn on their platform was just a cover to distract from the news story about them allowing users hosting child porn, prostitution and other illegal material to get away with warnings, so long as their accounts were profitable.
While the child porn and other things is pretty bad, why include prostitution?
Because it's illegal to solicit prostitution in most countries. The other common illegal content was scat. That was the point of the exposé, to highlight that they were allowing illegal users making illegal content on their platform to get away with warnings - I mean, how can you merely warn someone who is underage that they should stop posting underage content?!
Fair enough, though it does still seem a bit odd to list prostitution in particular. Whats the joke? If you fuck while recording it it aint prostitution.
Exactly. It's like Bernie Madoff. Bernie was doing the same thing as everyone else in 2008, but his clients were all rich folks. He went to jail. The hilarious thing is that Donald Trump was interviewed about Bernie and even Donnie had to admit that it was mostly victimless, because everyone Madoff had stolen from could afford the loses.
Bernie is an interesting case. As part of his guilty plea, he admitted that from around 1990 onward, basically every transaction in his company was fraudulent. The actual start was probably at the beginning of his company in the '70s.
What makes that interesting is that his clients weren't just rich, but experienced. They knew how to smell out a con. He was able to keep his claims just plausible enough that they didn't notice for decades.
A lot of Ponzi schemes will claim 300% or 5000% percent returns in a year. Experienced investors know that's bullshit; maybe you can get lucky in one or two trades, but it's never sustainable. The SP500 will tend to give you returns of 8% or so in the long run (with plenty of year to year variation), and it's hard to beat that while accounting for transaction costs. Bernie was claiming 15-20%, which is good, but not crazy.
imho, they all knew it was a scam, but they all figured that they were the insiders and only the rubes were getting fleeced.
CITATION NEEDED
Lots of companies were using legal but sketchy as hell financial instruments and over inflating safety on investments where lots of people lost lots of money. Bernie was different. He was creating fraudulent statements saying you had money in your account with him for years and only paying out with what other new investors put in; classic Ponzi scheme.
What other large Ponzi schemes at the time are you saying were occurring?
You're kidding, right?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007%E2%80%932008_financial_crisis
Of course, these weren't schemes or a rip off because it was 'legal.'
Yes. That's a fundamentally different situation than a ponzi scheme
Now you've got it. One was unethical but legal (most of the housing crisis), Madoff was breaking established written law. Only Madoff was the Ponzi scheme.
You should learn to recognize sarcasm.
I could have done that and called into question your naive understanding of financial transactions. However, I wanted to keep from insulting you, but it looks like you've removed that opportunity.
You funny.
Shame on you for not laundering the money through a book deal!